Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:10:08PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I would really like it if open() on a socket would be the same
> thing to connect to a socket as a client. I don't think it's a
> good idea to do that for the server side, though, since it
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:10:08PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I would really like it if open() on a socket would be the same
thing to connect to a socket as a client. I don't think it's a
good idea to do that for the server side, though, since it would
"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the Understanding the Linux Kernel book I
> plowed through yesterday afternoon the EXT2 file system
> has a defined file type "socket," distinct from fifo.
>
> How does one set up a named socket in a file system? Is it
> a legacy
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
> > > named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
> >
> > Pipes are not bidirect
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
Pipes are not bidirectional in Linux. We follow traditional non stream
behaviou
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to the Understanding the Linux Kernel book I
plowed through yesterday afternoon the EXT2 file system
has a defined file type "socket," distinct from fifo.
How does one set up a named socket in a file system? Is it
a legacy constant
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> How hard would it be to add? The limitation on fifos that you get the same
> one every time you open it makes some things tricky -- the server has to
> move the fifo and mkfifo
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
How hard would it be to add? The limitation on fifos that you get the same
one every time you open it makes some things tricky -- the server has to
move the fifo and mkfifo a new
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
> > named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
>
> Pipes are not bidirectional in Linux. We follow traditional non stream
> behavi
Alan Cox wrote:
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
Pipes are not bidirectional in Linux. We follow traditional non stream
behaviour
/dev/spx". I experiem
Alan Cox wrote:
> > /dev/spx". I experiemented with socket-based pipes under Linux, but I
> > couldn't gain access to them by open()ing the name. Is there help? I
>
> AF_UNIX sockets are bidirectional but like all sockets use bind() and
> connect().
And that's because sockets don't behave
Alan Cox wrote:
/dev/spx". I experiemented with socket-based pipes under Linux, but I
couldn't gain access to them by open()ing the name. Is there help? I
AF_UNIX sockets are bidirectional but like all sockets use bind() and
connect().
And that's because sockets don't behave like
> I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
> named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
Pipes are not bidirectional in Linux. We follow traditional non stream
behaviour
> /dev/spx". I experiemented with socket-bas
Many thanks to all who have suggested to use UNIX domain sockets. That was
my first thought--I just didn't know how to preserve the existing named
interface. And yes, I have consulted several "decent" UNIX programming
books which have led me to the likelihood that what I want to do cannot be
> I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
> found the answer to my question.
>
> I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
> named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
> in the /t
: bidirectional named pipe?
Perhaps man 2 mkfifo ?
On 02.03 "Miller, Brendan" wrote:
>
> I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
> found the answer to my question.
>
> I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bi
Perhaps man 2 mkfifo ?
On 02.03 "Miller, Brendan" wrote:
>
> I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
> found the answer to my question.
>
> I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
> named pipe. Th
I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
found the answer to my question.
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
in the /tmp directory. Any client can
I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
found the answer to my question.
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
in the /tmp directory. Any client can
Perhaps man 2 mkfifo ?
On 02.03 "Miller, Brendan" wrote:
I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
found the answer to my question.
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
named pipe. The architecture is
: bidirectional named pipe?
Perhaps man 2 mkfifo ?
On 02.03 "Miller, Brendan" wrote:
I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
found the answer to my question.
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
I've countless web searches and linux-kernel archives, but I haven't yet
found the answer to my question.
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
in the /tmp directory. Any client
Many thanks to all who have suggested to use UNIX domain sockets. That was
my first thought--I just didn't know how to preserve the existing named
interface. And yes, I have consulted several "decent" UNIX programming
books which have led me to the likelihood that what I want to do cannot be
I'm porting some software to Linux that requires use of a bidirectional,
named pipe. The architecture is as follows: A server creates a named pipe
Pipes are not bidirectional in Linux. We follow traditional non stream
behaviour
/dev/spx". I experiemented with socket-based pipes
24 matches
Mail list logo
